1. Following the District Court’s verdict and sentencing in relation to seven police officers’ assault upon an Occupy Central demonstrator, the judge in question and the judiciary in general have been subject to a barrage of unwarranted attacks. Aside from the more vitriolic terms such as calling judges “dogs”, there were sinister suggestions that the judge in this case and the judiciary are politically biased in their exercise of judicial power.

2. Judges have been subjected to such unwarranted attacks in the past two years, so to that extent the latest attacks are nothing new. On those past occasions, such attacks came only from cranks from various fringe groups. What makes the latest attacks particularly disturbing is that they have been led by societal leaders such as a famous drama producer who was a past recipient of the Hong Kong Government’s Medal of Honour, a Police union leader, and even a current sitting Legislative Council member.

3. Whilst, in a free society, one has the right generally to criticise judges and the Court, a comment or series of comments is an actionable contempt if such was calculated (either by actual or reckless intent) to (1) bring a Court or judge into contempt or lower their authority or (2) interfere with the administration of justice; and there is a “real risk” that the due administration of justice would be interfered with.

4. The Progressive Lawyers Group had spoken out against vicious statements seeking to undermine the public’s confidence in the judicial system (and thus potentially constituting contempt of Court) by way of statements dated 31 March 2015 and 24 February 2016. More importantly, the Secretary for Justice had repeatedly urged restraint during the past two years and in recent days against such comments, and threatening legal action while not having actually done so. Thus far, the Secretary for Justice’s pleas have fallen on deaf ears, and the perpetrators of such outrageous and, in our view, criminally contemptuous attacks on the judiciary are now becoming increasingly mainstream. There has even been monetary reward publicly offered for anyone who assaults the judge presiding over the case involving seven police officers’ assault upon an Occupy Central demonstrator.

5. Under Article 62 of the Basic Law, the Department of Justice is empowered to exercise its powers of criminal prosecution independently and without interference. The Progressive Lawyers Group does not seek to interfere with such independence. Nonetheless, in circumstances where the Secretary for Justice has a special role at common law as the defender of the judiciary, and his past calls for restraint have not only been ignored but becoming ever more openly flouted, one does wonder whether mere verbal urgings for moderation when commenting on judges and the judiciary are any longer sufficient to safeguard public confidence in the judiciary.

6. We trust the Secretary for Justice will take all necessary actions within his powers to ensure that the judiciary can exercise its judicial function free from any contemptuous attacks.